If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

13.8 ppg and 5.3 apg, may not sound like great numbers but the Pacers made the right move signing him for that amount of money. Hill has made 2 game winning shots this season last night and @ Toronto in the opener, even last season Hill was ranked top 10 in the NBA in his productions in the final 2 minutes, the dude is clutch. I know some people say we over payed for him but I disagree, Hill was worth every bit of it. We have two players we can go to for buckets when we need them and that is George Hill and David West.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

The counter-argument would be that if George Hill played better before the final two minutes of the game, we wouldn't have needed the heroics. I mean, the guy spotted the Lakers at least four points on easy fast breaks last night, and in the first half he only managed three points against All-NBA defenders Darius Morris and Chris Duhon. His shooting has been atrocious all season and his passing remains sub-par for a starting point guard. In a season where we desperately need consistency from our players (and we're certainly not getting it from Hibbert and George), Hill hasn't delivered. You could argue that he's been the second best player on the team thus far, but the team is only 7-8.

He hasn't shied away from the big moments, and he's hit more game-winners than I can remember, but let's judge the guy on the entirety of his work - every game, every minute. The front office already gave him $40 million based on a ten-game run. They overpaid because they remembered the good and forgot the bad. Let us not make the same mistake.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

The counter-argument would be that if George Hill played better before the final two minutes of the game, we wouldn't have needed the heroics. I mean, the guy spotted the Lakers at least four points on easy fast breaks last night, and in the first half he only managed three points against All-NBA defenders Darius Morris and Chris Duhon. His shooting has been atrocious all season and his passing remains sub-par for a starting point guard. In a season where we desperately need consistency from our players (and we're certainly not getting it from Hibbert and George), Hill hasn't delivered. You could argue that he's been the second best player on the team thus far, but the team is only 7-8.

He hasn't shied away from the big moments, and he's hit more game-winners than I can remember, but let's judge the guy on the entirety of his work - every game, every minute. The front office already gave him $40 million based on a ten-game run. They overpaid because they remembered the good and forgot the bad. Let us not make the same mistake.

I have posted that he was not worth near that much. I think I was probably wrong. 8 million is a good deal for him. Him Lance and George fit really well. Obviously Lance will be the odd man out when Granger returns, but I'm afraid that will hurt us. I think Lance starting at point is our best option going forward, simply because his defense, ball, handling and court vision are what we need at the point, not Hill's scoring. I think George Hill is better suited to be a 6th man, because he would be arguable the best one in the league. For some reason I believe that could solve our woes against Miami and other top teams. Obviously we need Hill now more than ever, I just think Lance has a higher ceiling he seems to be climbing towards fast at the point guard position.

Sure he has been playing off the ball a lot, but good things seem to happen when he gets the ball in his hands. I understand this may be by design to
ease him into the roll, but eventually we need to put the ball in his hands and let him go to work becuase he is out best creator for himself and others we've got. That includes Granger and Hill. He will make mistakes sure, but Hill and George have made their fair share and when any of the three are driving into traffic, I trust Lance's handles the most. I also trust his ability to pass into the post more than any other player for some reason. If his double clutch shots while driving to basket keep dropping at an increasing consitency, he may become our best all around player.

Free Lance. He is better at creating for Hill, than Hill is for creating for him. We may see Hill's woeful shooting percentages increase to the level they were when Collison was still a big part of our offense. I think Hill's main problem this year is he is being asked to have the ball in his hands more than at any point in his career so far. They have Lance leashed so he doesn't have the chance to get Hill open looks. But Lance does get Hill good looks a lot considering he may not touch the ball at all on many possesssions.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

It really doesn't matter how well or not he performs, he could put up 20/10/10 and it still wouldn't mean 5/40 was a good contract if you could have signed him for less. Fact is there was no competition, he could have very likely been had for less, the market for players considered at or near his level dropped out, and we overpaid, regardless of his production.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

It really doesn't matter how well or not he performs, he could put up 20/10/10 and it still wouldn't mean 5/40 was a good contract if you could have signed him for less. Fact is there was no competition, he could have very likely been had for less, the market for players considered at or near his level dropped out, and we overpaid, regardless of his production.

Wait a minute. Comping him to other players is only half of what is involved in retaining or acquiring a player. The other half of the matter, really a more important consideration, is whether there are other teams that had the cap space to pay him as much as we did.

I don't recall whether other teams still had that kind of money or not. I do agree with you that a good deal for any team is one in which you don't have to pay substantially more than the minimum amount that it actually takes to sign a player.

I would have hoped we could have gotten Hill for 5.5M - 6M per year. It didn't happen. But I really cannot say with certainty why. Could we have lost him if we had only been willing to pay that amount?

It seems reasonable that to lessen the risk in losing him that we were required to pay an amount more than the MLE. That much I feel like I know. But how much more than the MLE, who knows?

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Hill's a good player, but he's still not a PG, and that will be exploited again in the playoffs.

He is a good player and he is a point guard, at least by my criteria. He doesn't have creativity or court vision, but he is still a floor general. He runs Vogel's plays all the time, much to my dismay, and I really wish he would take the ball to the basket more since his floater is his best shot (especially when he's struggling with his outside shooting).

Then again, I think all the Pacers other than Hansbrough and West should drive the ball inside more.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

It really doesn't matter how well or not he performs, he could put up 20/10/10 and it still wouldn't mean 5/40 was a good contract if you could have signed him for less. Fact is there was no competition, he could have very likely been had for less, the market for players considered at or near his level dropped out, and we overpaid, regardless of his production.

fact is you don't know if there was competition for him, you are assuming that there was no competition for him, the Rockets signed Omer Asik for over 8 mil a year, you can't tell me that you know for sure no team offered Hill, because you don't know.

The Following User Says Thank You to BlueCollarColts For This Useful Post:

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Omer Asik is significantly more valuable than George Hill. I do know no team had the cap space to make GH that kind of offer. I do know no team did offer it because we signed an RFA in such a rush, for no apparent reason, instead of waiting for him to get an offer. Do you really think someone out there was waiting around for the end of the RFA time period to throw GH a 10M a year deal? No? Neither do I nor any other reasonable person on Earth does either.

Last edited by Dece; 11-28-2012 at 06:51 PM.
Reason: that's an awkward sentence... meaning is conveyed though

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dece For This Useful Post:

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

One concern that we prevented was a poison pill contract. If we had a feeling that that was looming, locking him up early was brilliant. This is not so far fetched, seeing what happened to Jeremy Lin. If Hill got a Lin offer, we probably would have had to let him go. I bet the Bulls/Knicks wish they wold have done what we did with Hill.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

One concern that we prevented was a poison pill contract. If we had a feeling that that was looming, locking him up early was brilliant. This is not so far fetched, seeing what happened to Jeremy Lin. If Hill got a Lin offer, we probably would have had to let him go. I bet the Bulls/Knicks wish they wold have done what we did with Hill.

The Bulls/Knicks did not have full Bird rights on Asik/Lin. The poison pill is actually the NBA trying to help teams in the Bulls and Knicks situation retain their players. Before, if Houston had offered a deal with that amount of money to Lin/Asik, the Bulls and Knicks would have been prohibited from matching. Now they can match but since they don't have full Bird rights, they would have had to match it by only paying 5 million the first two years and then a huge jump up, which is where the poison pill was. It's just a way for teams over the cap to be able to keep their players and still satisfy cap rules.

The Pacers did have full Bird rights on Hill. So there was zero potential for a poison pill contract and the Pacers could have matched whatever contract Hill got on the market. The Pacers must have either wanted the certainty of that 5th year, or been so close on money that they couldn't take the risk of Hill going onto the market even if he very likely would have signed for less.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cubs231721 For This Useful Post:

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

He hasn't been nearly as good as I'd like defensively. I think he can play much better there. His shooting has been off, but I can let that slide considering he's playing a roll he's not yet comfortable with and he's running Frank's terrible offense. Despite his struggles I think he's earned his money with his clutch play (thanks again Green), and leadership. He's only going to get better.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Omer Asik is significantly more valuable than George Hill. I do know no team had the cap space to make GH that kind of offer. I do know no team did offer it because we signed an RFA in such a rush, for no apparent reason, instead of waiting for him to get an offer. Do you really think someone out there was waiting around for the end of the RFA time period to throw GH a 10M a year deal? No? Neither do I nor any other reasonable person on Earth does either.

You have to throw out the fact that trading away Kawhi Leonard for a one year rental would be a significant loss... I am sure the weighed on the psyche of pacer's management.

"We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

He hasn't been nearly as good as I'd like defensively. I think he can play much better there. His shooting has been off, but I can let that slide considering he's playing a roll he's not yet comfortable with and he's running Frank's terrible offense. Despite his struggles I think he's earned his money with his clutch play (thanks again Green), and leadership. He's only going to get better.

I hate the perception that he has been a bad defender just because our pick and roll defense is terrible. People ripped him for being schooled by Tony Parker, but it wasn't Parker breaking him down one on one. I think Hill is a very solid defender.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

Google sunk cost fallacy for a more thorough explanation, but there's a famous poker quote about throwing good chips after bad... the moves you currently make can't alter the past, so using the past to justify bad moves in the present is wrong. Kawhi Leonard is spilled milk. He's irrelevant to contract negotiations.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

The counter-argument would be that if George Hill played better before the final two minutes of the game, we wouldn't have needed the heroics. I mean, the guy spotted the Lakers at least four points on easy fast breaks last night, and in the first half he only managed three points against All-NBA defenders Darius Morris and Chris Duhon. His shooting has been atrocious all season and his passing remains sub-par for a starting point guard. In a season where we desperately need consistency from our players (and we're certainly not getting it from Hibbert and George), Hill hasn't delivered. You could argue that he's been the second best player on the team thus far, but the team is only 7-8.

He hasn't shied away from the big moments, and he's hit more game-winners than I can remember, but let's judge the guy on the entirety of his work - every game, every minute. The front office already gave him $40 million based on a ten-game run. They overpaid because they remembered the good and forgot the bad. Let us not make the same mistake.

I believe you can say that about a lot of players in the team, specially all the new contracts.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

I hate the perception that he has been a bad defender just because our pick and roll defense is terrible. People ripped him for being schooled by Tony Parker, but it wasn't Parker breaking him down one on one. I think Hill is a very solid defender.

Me too. I've stated this several times, but I also think he can give a little more effort than he has. He just now getting into bball shape and he played with a wrap on his thumb for weeks so I expect he'll improve in all facets of the game as the season rolls along.

Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

If there was one player I wanted to get into the lane, I would take Tony Parker over every single player in the league. Including Rose/LeBron/Westbrook or whoever you want to throw in there. He's the driving force behind the Spurs' offense. They have great off-ball movement and great ball movement. But Parker repeatedly penetrates and opens up all the passing lanes for his team.

Using him as an example for Hill's lapses in defense is silly IMO. Parker can beat everybody in the league on a regular basis.